Fitzgerald: Re-capitalization Poses Challenge for Naval Air

Sea Power, Mar 2004 by Burgess, Richard R

Rear Adm. Mark P. Fitzgerald, director of air warfare for the chief of naval operations (CNO), is responsible for formulating the requirements of naval aviation programs. Working closely with the Naval Air Systems Command and the naval aviation type commanders, Fitzgerald is charged with the balancing act of matching requirements with resources, a never-ending parade of hard choices. Fitzgerald is a 1973 graduate of Northeastern University who holds a master's degree in aeronautical engineering from the University of West Florida. He served as an attack pilot in three fleet A-7 squadrons - commanding one of the Navy's last two A-7 squadrons in the first Navy strike on Baghdad during Operation Desert Storm. Fitzgerald, a graduate of the Naval War College, also commanded Carrier Air Wing 14. As commander of Carrier Group Eight, Fitzgerald served as commander of the Theodore Roosevelt Battle Group during Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan. Fitzgerald, who assumed his current duties - and those as the CNO's strike warfare sponsor - in May 2003, recently spoke with Sea Power Managing Editor Richard R. Burgess.

Is the number of aircraft requested in the president's fiscal 2005 budget proposal adequate to maintain a satisfactory pace of modernization?

Fitzgerald: The answer is yes and no. Right now, we are spending a lot of money for research and development, trying to recapitalize our force. We've got the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), the Multimission Maritime Aircraft and Aerial Common Sensor coming up. On the helicopter side, we've got the MH-60R/S. For the Marines, we've got challenges to re-capitalize their CH-46 helicopters with the V-22. The CH-53 helicopters are aging out, and we need to replace them with another H-53 variant. To replace old KC-130s, we're buying new KC-130J tankers. And we are developing the UH-1Y and AH-1Z helicopters.

The short part of this answer is: No, we don't have enough. We're buying more aircraft than we have over the last few years, but we're not buying enough because of the age of our airplanes. We've got to do the research and development in order to buy new aircraft. We have about 4,100 airplanes in naval aviation right now, and if we continue buying at [a rate of] only 100 per year that means that the average age quickly goes up over 20 years.

The challenge to naval aviation in the next few years is to transition from research and development into buying all those airplanes that are being developed - particularly on five fronts: tactical jets, maritime patrol, helicopters, Marine Corps aviation, and training airplanes. That will require some major infusion of capital.

Are the CH-53s requested in the budget new aircraft or remanufactured?

Fitzgerald: The Marines have just finished an analysis of alternatives and it appears that the best way of doing this is to buy new helicopters, probably H-53s updated with newer engines. The current H-53s have a few years left in them, so we've got time to do that.

With some aircraft types - E-2Cs and F/A-18E/Fs - going to second multiyear contracts, do you see other opportunities to reap savings with multiyear buys?

Fitzgerald: Yes. Multiyears have been a great news story for the Navy. Over the past four or five years, we've saved more than $2 billion on multiyears. We've got multiyear contracts for the MH-60S helicopter and for the Common Cockpit for the MH-60R/S. We're also purchasing KC-130s in a multiyear contract.

U.S. naval aviation seems to be on a roll toward greater capability. Do you think the political support exists for funding naval aviation programs ?

Fitzgerald: We have very good support in Congress. The value of the carrier and the carrier air wing - as demonstrated in the last two conflicts - has been very well recognized and received. The combatant commanders all want the capabilities that we have in our P-3 and EP-3 aircraft, which will be included in the Multimission Maritime Aircraft and the Aerial Common Sensor aircraft. The huge demand for the capability that naval forces bring is driven by sea basing, where we come without putting a big footprint down and we're able to project power without the permission of foreign governments.

How is the one-year delay in the JSF program affecting the Navy's strike fighter community?

Fitzgerald: My biggest concern is the age of my airplanes. The JSF is replacing the AV-8B Harriers and F/A-18C/D Hornets, which are starting to get to the point where we are flying the life out of the F/A-18 wing center barrels. With the delay in JSF production, we could end up having to buy more center barrel replacements for the F/A-18C/Ds.

Looking back on Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom, what lessons are influencing naval aviation today?

Fitzgerald: Operation Enduring Freedom was the tip of the revolution that's continuing. First, there was a revolution in precision weapons and precision in targeting. That happened in the air with the Global Positioning System and laser-guided weapons, and on the ground with special operations forces giving us very precise coordinates. All the traditional ways we used to do close air support changed in a very positive way, in that we were able to support ground forces in all kinds of weather. The focus of future weapons is to get smaller, lighter and more precise.